Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all neutral (false), so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the call returns a thread_id, status, next_action, poll_after_seconds, and next_step, implying an async pattern. It also specifies a 16000-character limit for text, which is a concrete behavioral constraint. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but it goes beyond annotations by describing the return contract and polling behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences followed by a clear return-value line. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then provides usage guidelines and output details. Every sentence adds information with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is moderately complex (async with polling), and the description addresses the key workflow: submit, receive thread_id, and follow next_step. It includes the return fields and length constraint. However, it omits any explanation of project_id and does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but given the output schema is provided, the return contract is sufficiently communicated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description only mentions text, giving a length limit but not its semantic purpose. project_id is completely unexplained, which is a significant gap for a required parameter. Despite the low coverage, the description only partially compensates, earning a score below the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool submits a change request (feature, bug fix, or new direction) in plain English. It specifies the action (submit) and resource (request), and distinguishes from siblings like answer_request (responding) and refine_request (modifying an existing request) by emphasizing submission of one new intent per call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to submit one feature or intent per call and to split multi-feature asks, which guides usage. It also instructs to follow the returned next_step and poll via get_request_status. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases (like refine_request for existing requests), so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use comparison.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.